build_create_lab_market_transaction

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and discloses that the tool builds unsigned transactions, validates against v7.2 rules, and blocks creation when required fields are missing. This is rich context that helps the agent understand side effects and failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the critical requirement, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a transaction builder with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, key constraints, and validation behavior. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the format of the returned unsigned transaction, but 'Build unsigned transaction' makes this implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all eight parameters, including the conditional requirement for event_time (Type A) and measurement_start (Type B). The description reiterates these requirements but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond emphasizing the importance of the market_type/timing relationship.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Build unsigned transaction to create a Lab (community) market,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling market creation tools by explicitly mentioning 'Lab (community)' and by noting v7.2 rule validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear prerequisite (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and mandatory combination of market_type with the corresponding timing field, which are essential usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative market creation tools (e.g., private or race markets), though the 'Lab' label implies the intended scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.